root@robecdc.UUCP (Super user) (02/03/90)
Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: talk, not sci, for *.philosophy.objectivism (was Re: SPO CHARTER) Summary: Expires: References: <1990Jan27.003806.4520@twwells.com> <9001280011.AA28097@apee.ogi.edu> <1990Jan28.111136.6077@twwells.com> Sender: Reply-To: root@robecdc.UUCP (Super user) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Robec Distributors Inc., D.C. Office Keywords: In article <1990Jan28.111136.6077@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <9001280011.AA28097@apee.ogi.edu> mehuld@apee.ogi.edu (Mehul Dave) writes: >: >A number of people have argued for sci on the basis that >: >discussions would be technical or that Objectivism is a science. >: >: No, people have argued that *philosophy* is a science and that Objectivism >: is a philosophy. Which leads me to, > >It says `established sciences'. > There is a way to settle this, is the "Science of Objectivist Philosophy" a BS program at MIT? As us 'dumb ole cuntry boys' would say: Scince = READIN, RITIN, RITHMATIC Pour on oil, may the flames rise high. You will note that I include my phone number. If you wish to take issue take note. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -William A. Sneed uucp: ...!pyrdc!robecdc!ghost -Robec Dist. voice: (703) 631-4800 -Manassas, Va fax: (703) 631-4806 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brain fried -- Core dumped ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The words you have just read are strictly my own and no one else's. They in no way should be construed as anything but my own personal opinion. Besides no one else would lay claim to them. :-) :-) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins) (02/11/90)
Why are we wasting all this time on where the Objectivist newsgroup should go? The *most* important thing is to establish an Objectivist newsgroup. As long as the placement of the group is not an out-right insult as in talk-religion-objectivism I see no good reason for such virorous debate on whether it belongs in the sci category or not. There are very strong arguments on why it does not, in my opinion. Namely that philosophy as such is not considered, by the original charter, to be part of what the hierarchy was set up for. I vote for talk.philosophy.objectivism for now. At a later date the fight for moving under the sci hierarchy may be tried again. Doing so now merely increases the likelihood of no Objectivist group at all. - Tim
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (02/13/90)
In article <2023@osc.COM>, Tim Atkins writes:
* I vote for talk.philosophy.objectivism for now. At a later date the
*fight for moving under the sci hierarchy may be tried again. Doing so now
*merely increases the likelihood of no Objectivist group at all.
i don't think it necessarily does that; many of those of
us opposed to sci.philosophy.objectivism won't vote against
talk.philosophy.objectivism (hell, i might even vote for it
even though objectivism holds little interest for me.)
i don't have anything against objectivists having a corner
of the net to themselves; i just don't like putting it in
sci.*
of course, if the sci.philosophy.objectivist diehards torpedo
the talk group by voting against it, then that's their problem.
richard
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty
``gee, you can hardly tell where the cat slept on the cake''